[Sun]

ID and evo are the two front running scientific theories.

Either both should be taught or neither.

[Coyoteman]

ID and evo are the two front running scientific theories.

Either both should be taught or neither.

Sorry, I can't agree about the scientific nature of ID. I think ID is CS lite, following the Supreme Court decision which blew it out of the water in the late 1980s.

But, I very much appreciate that you are such a polite poster. That is starting to be a much-appreciated virtue on these threads.

I think I will put the spine to the feathers; lots of work to do in the morning (I'm a scientist, ya know--don't try this at home!).

;-)

[donh]

ID and evo are the two front running scientific theories.

Unless you confine your inquiry to scientists, of course.

[aNYCguy]

ID and evo are the two front running scientific theories. Either both should be taught or neither.

First, ID is not a scientific theory, as it is non-falsifiable, and you know this. But I don't even have to get into this, because your suggestion to teach "the two front running scientific theories" is laughable on its face for other reasons:

Evolution has the support of well over 99% of those trained in the relevant biological fields. If ID is truly the second runner-up, it's a distant, distant second. According to your asinine version of "teach the controversy," flat earth theory would be taught in class alongside geosphericism (as these are the two front-running scientific theories), geocentrism would be taught alongside heliocentrism (as these are the two front-running scientific theories), matter indivisibility would be taught alongside atomic theory (as these are the two front-running scientific theories), fluid-caloric-as-heat would be taught alongside thermodynamics, and a million other discarded or far-fringe ideas would get valuable class time -- simply because they rank a vastly distant second to mainstream scientific consensus.

In fact, why not teach the third runner-up? The fourth? If a second runner-up with 0.5% of expert support deserves class time, surely a third-place fringe idea with 0.4% support deserves time. We'll be teaching kids about plasma-vortex-induced crop circles in no time at all, according to your suggestions for curriculum determination.